MechMate CNC Router Forum

Go Back   MechMate CNC Router Forum > Structure & Mechanics > 10. Base Table
Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 22:25
swatkins
Just call me: Steve
 
Houston
United States of America
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino11 View Post
Do you really think you will need the infinite range of the threaded rod? I would think you would set the table to a reasonable working height and would only very rarely change it for the odd large piece and then put it back for a long time again at the regular table height. Why not just have a few pre-drilled locations to which you could set the table to. Already leveled, etc.... Just a thought.
Then put a cheap bottle jack under each corner and raise and lower the table with those..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 22:25
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino11 View Post
Do you really think you will need the infinite range of the threaded rod? I would think you would set the table to a reasonable working height and would only very rarely change it for the odd large piece and then put it back for a long time again at the regular table height. Why not just have a few pre-drilled locations to which you could set the table to. Already leveled, etc.... Just a thought.
Yes you're correct, I won't be using the threads for precise lifting. I can always Zero the router bit to the general height of the table. The threads just make it easy to raise and lower the table and weight.

The previous post and #1 explain how the system will work. This is another reason I'm just using "over-the-counter" standard thread or all-thread as we call it around here, I'm not looking for precision, just a comfortable working height. Thanks-David
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 22:35
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
No matter which choice of lifting mechanism, you still need fix holes + pin/bolt to locate the bed position before lock/latching the bed.
Dave,
The design is getting more complicated then necessary, you need to consolidate...

I have another approach, build a honeycomb-ish sandwiched bed that is very rigid out of MDF, place a scissor lift in the middle fot the lifting, attach 3 or 4 pipe poles to the corners of the bed with position holes & use the scaffolding joints to lock the position on to the fixed table.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 22:45
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Ken- How won't it work? All four points will be moving at the same time. If you can image a machinisht vise employing the intergrated dovetail ways and using the linear screw to move the table left to right, now just take this concept and rotate it 90. The only difference is that my guide/clamp block will not be so tight to the linear vertical rail.

I also thought about the scissor lift, as in the one I use for my ATV. However, cost and rigidity was a factor in not using this idea.

In Post#22 I explain the same concept that you mention using scaffoling joints. But the way I saw it was that the rod riding inside the joint would only be attached to the structure at the top and bottom. So if the table were half way lifted the rod may (or may not) have some flex. By using the C-channel as a guide or rail the channel is technically attached to the structure from top to bottom. Thanks-David
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 22:45
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Your x-rails beams are weak in the y-direction when the gantry sits in the middle of a board . . . . .those beams will wobble a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 23:00
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Dave,
On paper, running 4 screws to move thing in unison is perfect, but my ex-day jobs told me it isn't as simple as they seem. A simple illustration is 2 man 3 leg contest. A single point push or pull works with less hassle both in building & in the long run.
My design philosophy is let each mechanism handle their purpose well. This had helped me to come up with things that are so fundamental that many think its out-of-the-box. On that, the lifting mechanism should only do lifting & the lock & latch should just do the lock & latch & do it extremely well. once you get into position, you lock the bed & the lifting mechanism can go take a cuppa in the pantry

Having a few more lock & latching point securely fasten to the bed onto the table also make the two as one and hence improve the rigidity of the table when its most needed during production. In this aspect, the space frame is ideal as it can span a lot further & still has very good rigidity.

BTW, you can make a scisor lift cheaply, if cost is a constrain, replace the hydraulic ramp with a screw & nut, that will also allow your hand crank adjustment.

Last edited by KenC; Thu 01 April 2010 at 23:04..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 23:04
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Gerald- That thought crossed my mind. These are just prelimanary conceptual ideas. I will take it into consideration and adjust the design accordingly. I'm still curious to your previous comment regarding "discarding 50% of the abpve material". Thank you
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 23:18
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Once you clamp/tie the table top to the x-rails, then you suddenly get a lot of strength, as per basic plans, which need very much less steel.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old Thu 01 April 2010, 23:28
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Ken- I unerstand your opinions and thoughts. Like I say to many around me, "I smell you".

However after over 23 in carpentry and building, I've had my share of erecting and using scafoldings and I don't beleive that these types of joints will be sufficient to reduce flex or movement like the more rigid and continiuos connection of the c-channel or for that matter any type of linear rail system.

I also agree with you and Gerald that the xbeam will be weak in the center with no locking point to the table. Like I said before that thought crossed my mind, I just haven't gotten around to all the details, just the general drawings of how the different components of the structure work with each other.

Before I conpleted the last revision, my first thought was to punch holes on the c-channel rail and just bolt the table to the fixed based at the four points(now should be at least six points). I wasn't too thrilled with the clamp system. It could lead to slipage. I agree, it should be a pin or bolt like system once the general height has been established.

As far as your first comment, the four threads working on paper, I'm not to sure if I agree with this. I have personally seen this concept work on a workbench. Also having worked on some high-end mult-million dollar homes, I have had my share of taking an idea from a piece of paper and making it work in the end. That was my role, job superviser, making sure what was on paper and spoken about got built.

Again thank you-David
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 00:20
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Ken- Cuppa? Had to look that one up in the dictionary.

If we simplify to using a bolt system to lock between the table and base, what would be your opinion on the following? As you saw in the last revison, I added four vertical linear rails at the outside corners of the table. Originally, I wanted to put them right next to the riser thread assembly but didn't have the room. Now that we have established that we don't need a guide rail system, but just have two plates riding by each other with a series of holes that would align and bolts placed through them. This can be as simple as two smaller width L steel sliding by each other.

a) Should I keep the four outside corner points at their current location and add another one in the center. Three points on each side.
b) Still keep the points at the outside corners and add another two in between for a total of four contact points on each side.
c) Move them next to the riser thread assembly (approximatly 20" from ends) and still add one in between.

I personally prefer choice 'a' because this would spread out better the contact points to the x-beam side base and not concentrate it so much near the center. However go with 'b' for more bolted points.

Also, by incorporating choice a or b, would the horizontal diagnals at the bottom of fixed based be required any more? I believe this is where Gerald is going with his last post.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 00:34
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
David,
I'm impressed by your job!

As engineers, it is our obligation to eliminate as many "things" that won't or very difficult to implement from reaching the paper.

You can always try to perfect the design. With enough time, effort & perseverance, they will definitely work eventually.

Its another philosophical thingy...

Normally, these multi-million dollar project can afford the time & money, yours salary & your crews'... NOT when build for own use especially to generate income, i.e. put on the business man cap.

I always keep the two very distinctive from each other.

I meant to say look into the scaffolding joints for inspiration, but if really tight with time, just use them untill a better solution arises.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 02:42
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Grabouw (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
Moving the four jacks independantly will be frought with problems and lifting it with hydraulics could be just as troublesome, the four jacks driven by one chain and motor WILL work - have a close look at any large wide belt sander - very solid table moved vertically with four jack screws driven by one motor and I have seen some very big ones move effortlesly (see Heeseman machines). All this proposed system needs is some small refinements to the locking/consolidating mechanism.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 03:25
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Philosophy again...

My idea for the lift is to move the bed to a close proximity of the latching position. Then latch & lock at precise location, using tapered shaft/ dovel pin or what ever that fits the purpose to mate the locating holes on the bed & the frame then secure them with bolting through or other methods.

By doing so, we eliminate headache of having a "precision" height adjustment. Only require precision height locking which is a lot easier & cost effective.

But really, if the height need to be adjust after every single job... You then need to surface the spoil board after every shift.... Unless you make sure the positioning holes are accurate within o.1mm i.e. +/-0.05mm.

Why not buy a knee mill or something else convert it? All will be precision. Milling machine can be a lot larger then 10' x 40', with Z-stroke of over 6' and used one can be found with a little digging.
Just my opinion, one has their own.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 03:56
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
If I look at the sketch plans in this thread, the moving table has become heavier than the static x-rails. And that leads to the question; Why not make the table static and do the height adjustment on the x-rails?
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 04:28
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
AAAAAHHHHHH!
That a good approach too.
Or just make the gantry wheels move up/down?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 08:11
bradm
Just call me: Brad #10
 
Somerville(MA)
United States of America
Dave, I assume that once you've finished the fun part of design brainstorming, you're going to step back, sort out what design you're using for an extended Z if necessary, and do at least an armchair evaluation of what the forces will look like in the more challenging cutting positions. Then check this carefully against the types and shapes of materials you plan to cut, and see if your overall design will really work better than the original.

Brainstorming is great, and I encourage you to continue, but to my eye, you're already flirting past the boundary of K.I.S.S. if the actual requirements are just a table with an 8-10" cutting range that can be adjusted for materials from 0" to 20" or so, and not use more than it's own envelope for storage inside the shop.

Last edited by bradm; Fri 02 April 2010 at 08:15..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 12:05
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
All I can say is WOW, the gears are smoking' now.

Ken- One main thing I forgot to mention regarding my field of work and working on high-end multi million dollar homes or not high-end at all, the homes were not new, but remodels. Remodeling a home is a different animal. I wish they were new, you would have a clean slate to work from when ever the architect, engineer and/or designer adds, changes anything. But when you have an architect and engineer want to put an elaborate steel skeleton inside an 80 year old home and you're not allowed to knock it down because it's 'grandfathered' into the site, that's were I excelled the most. Figuring out how to put a square peg in a round hole. This has always been my mode of seeing things, always trying to figure out a good solution to a difficult or near impossible idea. When I walk into someones home, whether new or falling apart, I don't see paint, trim, furniture, etc., I see framing, wiring, piping, structure, etc. Strange, but that's the way I see things.

This is how I see this part of the project, as a challenge to an idea and criteria. The criteria? a)Trying to eliminate as much play in the extended z axis as possible for smaller more precise projects, b) Create a deep cavity for use of an indexer and c)no space in the shop to allow for other components to help alleviate a and b above.

The main reason for this particular design because I have seen it work. Like Alan pointed out, this concept is used many times in woodworking and other stationary tools. My own Dewalt Thickness Planer uses this exact engineering, much compact machine, but same principle. I agree that a hydraulic system would be too complicated for the infrequent use of the table, however a chain and sprocket system is very simple and effective, either by means of an electric motor or simple hand crank.

The discussion here is to see how to take a conceptual idea and take it through a working machine. From the beginning of this topic, the original sketch has progressed and evolved thanks to the many innovative members of this forum.

As far as Gerald latest opinion to keep the table static and move the gantry to the work, I'm not so sure. This would require more precise engineering to make the gantry move to a precise and exact location. At that point you may have to introduce linear guides and ball screw with anti-back lash nuts. Keeping the base and gantry static would allow for a better job if the gantry were already level and tuned to the base. Its as simple as a 20 ton shop press: the jack, gantry, legs and base are stationary and static, but the working table moves up and down and held at any location with pins. In this case the pins are replaced with bolts and require better precise hole locations.

This still leaves us with the original idea, move the table a general distance from the gantry. Still locking/bolting the table to the static base (which so far has been the most effective and simple solution for this). The thought of the spoil board being perfectly level at any position has crossed my mind and would require precise hole locations to achieve this. I believe the additional material under the table is to keep it as rigid and stable as possible and then transfer this rigidity to the base once it is locked in place.

I believe that some minor adjustments, leveling, shimming may be required every time the table is moved. But it would be infrequent and the time required to do this is a trade off I have to live with for both point a and b above. If in the future this becomes a problem due to productivity, then and only then I will have to make a decision: move from my current home to a place I can build a bigger shop and at that point build one or two more CNC machines to do a specific role.

As always thanks for the opinions, thoughts and ideas from Gerald, Alan, Ken and all you guys. It's an enjoyable topic going on here and look forward to more.-David
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old Fri 02 April 2010, 12:35
JLFIN
Just call me: Jim
 
glenwood iowa
United States of America
like the scissor lift concept,
as i'm pondering i thought of your bolting system and it came to me that in order for the table to bolt up tight it has to be a perfect fit all the way around or its going to pull on your x rails and the rigidity of your adj. table looks like it would win, so my question is would it be better to have your table come up and run into stop/bolting blocks same with going down however in the down position add adj(slotted) angle iron over to your side rails, that way they won't pull and you will be tight, drawing a concept and welding it up are two completely different animals (which great drawings by the way ) I think if your tie in were up and down it would give alot more tolerance on the table
side note Harbour Freight sells those scissor tables fairly cheap
I wrote this before I updated all the posts HOPE it still pertains i need to go back and read to catch up!!!! good luck

Last edited by JLFIN; Fri 02 April 2010 at 12:44..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 00:31
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Table: Adjustable/Lift Design-Version 4

Jim- Thanks for the comments. Yes below shows a pin setup using 3/4" bolts w/nuts onto holes vertically 2" OC. As you mentioned about the guide blocks having a perfect fit all the way around would probably be next to impossible to achieve during welding.

So I made the guide plates to have adjustment or play in the y-axis as the table is being raised or lowered. Once its to height the top two bolts are tighten and then the 3/4" bolt assembly is inserted through the side of the guide plate and into the guide rail. At this point after tightening, there will be eight points tightening the table to the base.

I have been giving some consideration into the scissor lift table idea, it's sounds like a cleaner and simpler way of vertical adjustment. I'll have to do some more homework on that. As mentioned before the chain and sprocket idea has not been finalized, just trying to work the structure and mechanics of the table first.



Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 00:45
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradm View Post
Dave, I assume that once you've finished the fun part of design brainstorming, you're going to step back, sort out what design you're using for an extended Z if necessary, and do at least an armchair evaluation of what the forces will look like in the more challenging cutting positions. Then check this carefully against the types and shapes of materials you plan to cut, and see if your overall design will really work better than the original.

Brainstorming is great, and I encourage you to continue, but to my eye, you're already flirting past the boundary of K.I.S.S. if the actual requirements are just a table with an 8-10" cutting range that can be adjusted for materials from 0" to 20" or so, and not use more than it's own envelope for storage inside the shop.
Brad- the cutting range will be 22" not 8-10". As mentioned before this is the reason for the adjustable table and also to create a deep cavity for the indexer.

And yes, after all the brainstorming, I will step back and see what works and what needs to be changed. I pass the KISS boundary the day I decided I prefer a longer z-axis and an indexer. There's no turning back now.

I'm trying to build a machine that will allow me to perform a variety of projects. Before someone post a response to this comment, I know there's a price to pay for it in the design. This is something I want to do and need to do.

Thanks-David
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 01:50
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Not disputing your choice but this is too complex to achieve a simple goal.

Why not just make the gantry bracket a feet taller & make the Z-slide long enough to drill for oil. that should meet your needs.

If you are worried about precision, don't. Anyway you already knew that a multi-purpose machine is a compromised machine....

BTW, The way you construct your location holes will be impossible to be near to achieve "precision". Why? the lef itself is not precise, the hole drilling also won't be precise & you can't find a reliable datum to work around...
You should have a precision machined plate which you will bolt on after the table is constructed.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 02:38
TheDave
Just call me: dave
 
Toledo (Ohio)
United States of America
Have you seen Art's thread for his version of the MechMate?

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174

It sounds to me like you want something similar to what he built.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 03:15
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Not exactly, but he focus on achieving his need & he wasn't greedy for a multi purpose machine. He did it real simple & I like his modification a lot.

My brain storming question for you is.
Must you move your spoil board around to achieve your 22" cavity?
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 11:03
cab. guy
Just call me: Ron
 
Boise,Id.
United States of America
Hi Dave,
Interesting design,using four screw jacks to lift the table with an adaptable impact wrench,would be easy but you could end up racking the table as well.Turning the
screws by ratchet,well that would be a long day.The scissor jack in the center of the table seems beneficial.The real challenge of your design,isn't so much the movement
of the table.The real technical challenge is how to move the table without disturbance of the rail alignment.If your design takes those rails out of parallel alignment as little as .004 ,the result is technically ,your vee rollers are trying to climb out of the track.
Heres on option that might work for you,using linear guides or even a crude guide system,having mechanical stops at both destinations,make the table a 64th of an inch undersized all the way around.The intended gap is for shim stock and through bolting at corners only. On the top position use the gantry as the tram (distance
between guides) shim and through bolt.Why the bolts? To help solidify the moving table to the to the outer frame.Dave, at faster speeds your operating no less than a jack hammer.You can get those linear rails on eBay at 20-25 cents on the dollar.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 12:32
cab. guy
Just call me: Ron
 
Boise,Id.
United States of America
Dave,
on the scissor jack,I have one on my late model GMC truck.It has plenty of stroke,payload not much issue. It also has 90 degree strait up throw(neutral).It can be used with an impact.At a junk yard,like brand new ---pocket change.How to implement?Rid yourself of jack screws,mount 4 linear guides,one per corner 20mm
no larger.One shoe per corner. Build the bed,find the exact balance point before
frame installation.This is where you mount the jack.You might be wondering if you
could get bound up in one of the corners?Only if you leave the table substantially out of balance.Its simple,cheap and should work very well.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 12:43
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenC View Post
Not disputing your choice but this is too complex to achieve a simple goal.

Why not just make the gantry bracket a feet taller & make the Z-slide long enough to drill for oil. that should meet your needs.

If you are worried about precision, don't. Anyway you already knew that a multi-purpose machine is a compromised machine....

BTW, The way you construct your location holes will be impossible to be near to achieve "precision". Why? the lef itself is not precise, the hole drilling also won't be precise & you can't find a reliable datum to work around...
You should have a precision machined plate which you will bolt on after the table is constructed.
Ken- Gas around here just jumped 15 cents per gallon in the last week alone. You have a point, if I hit oil under my basement I can then take the money and buy several cnc'c already built to my specs. I'm still trying to source a well drilling bit to fit inside my 1/2" collect for my router.

The taller gantry will not work also, I already covered that limitation due to the 7'4" ceiling height in my SMALL, did I mention SMALL, shop. As drawn with the 22" z the setup is at almost 7' from floor to top of up most z travel.

Many have here on this forum made multipurpose machines with great success, either with a tall z and/or indexer while still having the original machine some where in the build. The major compromise to this idea would be the setup every time the table is adjusted. The manufacturing and assembly of this idea is, to me at least, a challenge and relaxing part of it.

On a better note, I do agree with the precision drilling for those plates. I may have to at least get those sourced out at a local machine shop. I don't think that any amount of measuring I do, I'll be able to get the spacing tolerance to an acceptable level.-David
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 12:56
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Ron- I'm beginning to see the light here. Like stated before just ideas thrown out there for others like yourself to help with a better solution. I went this morning to my local steel supplier/surplus dealer and I saw this lift table below for $260, normally sells for $400 online. It's new, never used, and has a 600 lb capacity. I do agree this setup will make construction a lot quicker and the travel more efficient.

With the last two revisions I made, I always had the thought of using a type of linear guide or rail. However I couldn't find a cheap source for this idea, that's why I first had the clamping block riding behind an angle steel as a guide rail and the last idea was that the guide blocks would just ride loosely in front of the guide rail and then get bolted together.

If you can point me in the direction to examples of those linear rails you mention, I would greatly appreciated. Again thanks-David



Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 13:57
JLFIN
Just call me: Jim
 
glenwood iowa
United States of America
Dave,
I like very much where your heading, great visual on drawings.
I would love to see a dual bolting in all positions on the vertical legs even if they are only 4 or 5 inches apart (i don't know how but you seem to be great at taking theory and putting it on paper) keep going even if you get more opinions ( like mine ) then you ask for
Good job
harbor freight has 1500lb atv lift for 80 dollars
500 lb table lift 139.00
1000 lb for 199.00

Last edited by JLFIN; Sat 03 April 2010 at 14:00..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 14:16
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Jim-thanks for the input and comment. There's a Harbor Freight right here in town, I'll have to stop by there a see what they have. I did a rough weight calculation of the table with 1-1/4" MDF and it comes to about 475#. The 500 lb would do, but the 1000 lb might be safer. I don't think that items at Harbor Freight hold up to their specified capacity, so the 1000 lb unit may have a safer tolerance.

Yeah, I can just add more length to the vertical side of the guide block in order to accommodate another bolt at 4"OC. The guide rail still has plenty of room at the bottom to allow for two more 3/4"D holes for this concept. Though, that's a lot of bolting, 16 total now, but like I stated before the table would be moved very little.-David
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old Sat 03 April 2010, 14:55
cab. guy
Just call me: Ron
 
Boise,Id.
United States of America
Dave,
Go to ebay site,search( thk linear) look for shs or hsr style rails and blocks. 25mm
to large 15mm to small 20mm just right according to the three little bears.The lift you have pictured ,quite nice.How much manual control at top would you have--hole alignment?Pistons can hang up in the seal,making it difficult to precisely control elevations.If the jack pressure isn't controlled at the top of the lift,you may risk damage to the table. Between pressure control and limit switch issues they would need to be sorted out.Personally I would consider it doable. Also make sure that its
travel is straight up and down.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why not use an adjustable, regulated power supply? Bob Cole 702. Power Supplies 19 Thu 25 August 2011 10:33
Opinions on table design using 100 x 100 box tubing rotorzoomer General - MM Build 10 Wed 24 March 2010 00:49
Table Design for twin spindle setup Travish General - MM Build 7 Fri 09 October 2009 20:08
Adjustable and/or isolating feet under table legs? Robert M 10. Base Table 9 Fri 21 November 2008 19:46
Z-axis design Dick van Randen Archives 4 Sun 03 September 2006 14:35


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 20:04.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.